Cuomo Needs to Resign, Here’s Why

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s troubles are reaching a saturation point with the public and many congressional Democrats, who are demanding that he step down. As more women come forward to accuse him of sexual harassment, the more comical his refusal to resign becomes. These revelations come after data from the New York Department of Health revealed that Covid deaths in nursing homes were underreported by as much as 50 percent, leaving out deaths of patients that had been transferred out of nursing homes to hospitals. This discovery alone should be enough for Cuomo to resign. However, he denied that there was a discrepancy and refused to take responsibility, calling it a delay in reporting.

Since the election, which ousted Trump from the Oval office and ushered in the Biden Administration, the polarization of the American people is more prominent than ever. Many on the far right continue to push unfounded claims of a stolen vote, and the far left appears to still be gloating at President Biden’s significant, yet hotly contested, win. Biden is walking a fine line as he attempts to promote his unity message, and has said nothing about Cuomo’s scandals.

Biden has worked hard to promote his $1.9 trillion Covid relief package, and has been vocal about promoting the role of women in his administration, so his silence seems weird – and intentional. Several members of Congress, as well as New York mayor Bill DeBlasio and others, have made it clear that they believe Cuomo needs to resign.

Cuomo, who has been an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, appears to be taking a page out of his playbook. The Trump Administration ran roughshod over government and individual accountability over the last four years, denying wrongdoing for obvious transgressions, covering up scandals, and eroding public trust in our democracy. Democrats have made it quite clear that they would make (GOP) politicians accountable for their corruption. By logical extension, this should apply to all politicians, and many Democrats appear to be willing to apply that to members of their own party. Cuomo, on the other hand, is doubling down on his self-righteousness, defending the grievous gap in nursing home Covid deaths and expressing hollow regret for his actions toward the women he allegedly harassed.

Democrats have tenuous control of Congress, and Cuomo is endangering the delicate balance. He is handing the GOP the ammo it needs to wrestle back control in 2022. The New York state Assembly has authorized an impeachment investigation in an effort to remove the stain of his alleged misdeeds before they become permanent. That will take time, however – and more accusations may come forth, making Cuomo and the Democrats look even worse. This is as close to a guarantee that the GOP can grab back control of Congress as one might get.

Cuomo needs to acknowledge the scandals, express true contrition, and step down. He can make the hard choice, or have the choice made for him. His ouster – whether by resigning or impeachment – is inevitable.

Similar article: Being Incarcerated with COVID-19… What They’re Not Telling Us

An Attempt at Redemption in the 11th Hour

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

One question keeps playing over and over in my mind. Was it worth it? Four people are dead. More than 60 people arrested, and 50 police officers injured is the direct result of the onslaught on Capitol Hill. I keep asking myself: Was it worth it?  

As I sat and watched, alongside the rest of the world, Trump followers under the guidance of their (cult) leader, ripped through the Capitol to terrorize Congress members, and attempted to derail the vote to certify President-Elect Joe Biden’s victory. Chaos ensued and members of Congress were forced to shelter in place in order to avoid the dangers that awaited them just outside of their doors. All I could seem to ask is “was it worth it?” Was the violence worth it… a culmination of years of lies and propaganda put forth by the President and backed and promoted by the GOP worth the attempted slaughter of our democracy? 

Here we are, now at the end of an anarchic assault, members now wanting to chastise the President’s inciteful actions and we, the American people, are supposed to just accept that? 

I’m not impressed by the sudden change of heart of those Republican Senators whose intentions were to object to the certification, but now decide to move forward with the vote. I’m not impressed by the statements of Senator Lindsey Graham now wanting to publicly state that President Trump’s actions were reprehensible. The fact that Graham is “embarrassed and disgusted” does not absolve him of his involvement, quite frankly, his redemption song is bullshit. We won’t forget. Americans won’t forget.

I find myself wondering how this country can become unified when those who helped launch this attack will ultimately not see consequences for their actions? Senator Graham, Senator Cruz, Senator Hawley, and the like put themselves and their own political self-interests first.

In two weeks’ time, the nation will usher in a new administration, yet we’re left with members of our government who are just as culpable? What are their consequences for fanning the flames to literally overthrow our democracy? As the calls for Trump’s removal increase, so should the removal of those members of Congress who have aided and abetted him in his thinly veiled attempt to turn our democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship.        

This 11th-hour redemption by GOP members is nothing short of a failed hail mary. I only can assume that these new condemnations come with the hope that the American people will overlook the roles they played in the embarrassment and shameful acts that took place on January 6, 2021. The American people should NEVER FORGET what they tried to do to our democracy. As the new administration prepares to take office on January 20th, our nation can begin to have hope in our Democracy again.

Similar Read: My Reaction to the Storming of Capitol Hill

Fascism 101

by with 2 Comments CultureFeaturedPoliticsRace Relations

President Trump recently tweeted this in regard to the four freshmen Congresswomen who oppose his policies: 

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

And added this today:

“If you’re not happy, you can leave.”

These statements are fascistic in nature and seek to do two things: 

1. Create division in this country so that Trump can align himself with the more powerful side. 

If everyone got along, we would have no need to hire a strong man to enact our wishes on those who disagree with us. Trump wants sides and he will claim the more violent, outspoken, loyal, consistently voting, and ruthless one.

“You’re with the police or against us.”

“But there is clear video evidence of racist motivations driving police officers to murder minorities recently and while obviously, the majority of cops are not racist, we should probably examine this and try to improve…”

“NOPE! You’re against us!”

“You support the troops or you are against us.”

“But I want to raise awareness about an issue so I consulted with U.S. Veterans about how to properly honor the flag and our country while still protesting the deficiencies we might still need to address…”

“NOPE! You’re against us!”

“You’re a capitalist or a communist.”

“But we already have a dozen socialist programs in this country like (ironically) the police, the military, fire, infrastructure, public schools, parks, etc., and while the free market is an incredible mechanism that should drive MOST industries, maybe we should consider taking healthcare out of the private sector because Insurance Companies prioritize wealth over health.”

“NOPE! You’re a communist.”

“You’re a Christian or the Devil.”

“But I’m Jewish/Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Buddhist/etc.”

“NOPE! You’re the Devil.”

“You’re either American, or you don’t support me.”

“But I don’t support you.”

“NOPE! Then you’re not American, go back to where you came from!”

When you tell someone, “go back to where you came from,” what does that even mean!? My ancestors came to the United States mostly from England and Belgium and I don’t know how I would even begin to “go back” to those countries. This is an impossible statement and obviously racist since Trump has never said it to any White American.

2.  Destroy Any Criticism or Descent. 

The other horrific quote about leaving if you are not happy is the idea that you essentially cannot criticize the United States or the President. “If you don’t like it, you can leave (or die). We’re never changing, no matter how corrupt, cancerous, or callous we have become.”

This is indicative of narcissists who tend to do major damage to those around them and get furious when their behavior is criticized. I’ve come up with my own personal definition that I think states the condition clearly:

“A narcissist is someone who punches you in the face repeatedly and when you ask them to stop, they say, ‘don’t tell me what to do!’”

Trump is obviously a narcissist, but most of his supporters are narcissists as well. They have no regard for others, only their collective identity which they believe is the “real” America. The President thinks he and his minority bloc of supporters own the country.

What Trump does not realize is that when he says, “If you don’t like it here, you can leave,” what he is really saying is, “If you don’t like it here, vote for my opponent in the 2020 election.”

Because that’s how a Democracy like America works best: We fight each other on the ballot, not the battlefield.

This article was originally published on 15 July 2019.

Similar Read: Diplomacy and War: Know the Difference 

An Icon on the Hill & Beyond

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedPolitics

Georgia Representative John Lewis was labeled as the humble giant on the Hill. However, his colleagues referred to him as the Conciseness of Congress. He’ll be remembered for his continuous fight for Voter’s Right, his lifetime fight for all people. 

At the 1963 March on Washington where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” address, Civil Rights leaders asked John Lewis to tone his speech down afraid that it would be too much and would cause controversy. Lewis was the last living speaker at the march on Washington.

On October 8, 2013, Lewis was arrested outside on Capitol Hill for civil disobedience while he was standing up with protestors for Immigration reform. Nothing new for Lewis… he had been arrested 40+ times for peacefully protesting when the stakes were just as high. On October June 12, 2016, the nation was shocked by another shooting. This time it was the Pulse Night Club, a gay night club that was personally targeted in Orlando, Florida. On June 22, Rep. Lewis held a floor sit-in on the floor of The US House of Representatives just ten days after the Shooting. The sit-in protest, which was to fight specifically for gun control, lasted for more than 12 hours with roughly 40 Democratic House Representatives by his side. 

Lewis was not just an icon on the Hill, but beyond. In fact, he was mainly known for his work and legacy off the Hill. He was born the son of sharecroppers on February 21, 1940, outside of Troy, Alabama. He was inspired by the activism surrounding the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the words of the late Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., which he heard on radio broadcasts. He made a decision at a very young age to become a part of the Civil Rights Movement. While a student at Fisk University, John Lewis organized sit-in demonstrations at segregated lunch counters in Nashville, Tennessee. In 1961, he volunteered to participate in the Freedom Rides, which challenged segregation at interstate bus terminals in the Deep South.

From 1963 to 1966, Lewis was named Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which he helped form. John Lewis led over 600 peaceful, orderly protestors across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965. The marchers were attacked on that bridge by Alabama state troopers in a brutal confrontation that became known as “Bloody Sunday.” He suffered a skull fracture and was one of 58 people treated for injuries at the local hospital. Despite more than 40 arrests, physical attacks and serious injuries, Lewis remained a devoted advocate of the nonviolence philosophy.

In 1981, he was elected to the Atlanta City Council. And in November 1986, he was elected to Congress and served as U.S. Representative of Georgia’s Fifth Congressional District since then. Earlier this year, Lewis attended the 55th-anniversary of the march in Selma, which was a surprise appearance considering his illness. One of his last public appearances was in DC on Black Lives Matter Plaza (16th Street) with Mayor Muriel Bowser. He not only was there to see the name change of 16th Street, but also to witness in person the large display of Black Lives Matter painted in yellow. Such an iconic moment for one of the original fathers of the Black Lives Matter movement to witness. 

In December 2019, Lewis presided over the House vote to restore voter’s rights. The House voted and passed this bill. The Senate never even brought the bill to the floor for a vote. That bill still remains on Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell‘s desk still today. Lewis made his transition from this earth on Friday, July 17, 2020, after his battle with pancreatic cancer. Whenever I now hear the sound of the thunder it will remind me of his thunderous voice of advocacy. His legacy will live on.

Similar Read: You Are NOT Your Ancestors!

Reflections on Paul Volcker’s Memoir: Keeping At It

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

I used my travel time over the holidays to finally get through Paul Volcker’s memoirs, pushed to the top of my list by his passing.  I suppose I’m happy for the window into how he positioned his career, but it affirms him as one of my longtime least-revered great influencers of the past 50 years.

Growing up as a country kid in the worst of the farm crisis, my family farm was collateral damage of his battle against inflation.  I read his book looking for better understanding and condolence and found none.

His annoyance at Congress for formalizing the dual mandate of the Fed to manage unemployment as well as inflation… his distrust of econometrics… his willingness to label any alternative views or level of appropriate inflation as harmful or outright corrupt in its intent- down to saying one of the reasons he left Princeton was “the unfortunate modern practice of allowing students to rate their professors.”  Throughout his career, there was no ability in him to humanize those in the real world or to consider the reality that everything on earth doesn’t fit neatly into little boxes and charts, and that sometimes one can be in need of others’ views.

There was an important role for discipline- for fighting corruption in the financial system and globally, and for that he was useful to the country; but he did his best work for the UN, the IMF and the World Bank where he was able to sort and investigate, but unable to subject the world to his myopic worldview unabated.

There’s a need for someone as he says, “to take the punchbowl away just as the party gets going,” but he didn’t need to revel in it so completely, and should have been more thoughtful – if only in hindsight- to the possibility that the economy could have recovered with less damage had he been able to see better down from his great tower.

Nobody Is Above The Law… Impeachment

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

The night before only the 3rd vote in US history to impeach a sitting president, New Yorkers gathered in Time Square to chant, “Nobody is above the law.” Nobody… surprisingly a point of contention considering some would argue that doesn’t include the highest office in the land, Commander-in-Chief, 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

Following the Civil War in 1868, Andrew Johnson became the first president in US history to be impeached. Nearly 150 years later, Bill Clinton become the second. And with the exception of some unforeseen wild event, Donald Trump will become the third. A shame for Donald Trump considering he survived the Mueller investigation, only to get caught up in a quid pro quo regarding his attempt to pressure Ukraine’s leaders to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden and his father, senior statesman and Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden.

(Sidenote: Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors for Burisma, a Ukraine-based energy holding company from 2014 to 2019 while his father, Joe Biden, who was Vice President at the time, oversaw policy regarding the Eastern European nation. Hunter had no experience in Ukraine nor did he have a background in the energy sector. While it’s not illegal, him having a paid board seat on the other side of the world is bizarre, it doesn’t add up, and should be questioned.)

I digress… back to US presidential history…

It’s important to note that while Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have both been formally impeached, neither of them were removed from office through impeachment. And neither will Donald Trump. While the House of Representatives have more than enough votes to impeach him, the Senate does not. Nevertheless, Trump felt the need to write a 6-page rant disguised as a letter to Nancy Pelosi where he exclaimed, “More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.”

6 pages of that…

Nearly a year from the 2020 elections, how will this impact the electorate? Specifically independents and voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania… three states which all went blue for the previous 6 presidential elections before 2016.

Will it even matter? Or more importantly, which Dem will capitalize on this historic moment, win the nomination and carry that momentum to the general election?

Similar Read: Important Takeaways From Mueller Testimony

Why Deval?

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

A new candidate has entered the Democratic primary for president. His name is Deval Patrick. A Chicago native, Patrick is notably a close friend of former President Barack Obama. While the Democratic Party primary is open to any candidate, there are already over 15 candidates still in the race. Thus, the question becomes why Deval and why now? One can only imagine that he has entered the race because the other candidates are dismal or he has entered because he believes he has the best chance at securing the Democratic nomination next year. We should also consider that Duval chose to enter the race rather than endorse one of the current candidates.

His entry into the Democratic primary for president leads some to believe that he doesn’t think any of the other candidates can secure the nomination. But why would he think this if there are viable candidates in the race, which includes two US senators, a former vice president, a former cabinet official from the last president, a congresswoman and other business people?

We must also examine if the Democratic Party put Patrick up to run for president. Is the Democratic Party so insecure that they would be willing to pull a Hail Mary, or find an “elite” candidate for whom big donors would be pleased? Patrick literally filed to run in the New Hampshire primary on Thursday (11/14) and will foreseeably continue throughout the rest of this campaign cycle. While he is a former governor of the state of Massachusetts and a seasoned statesman, his entry this late in the Democratic primary for President of the United States should raise some eyebrows. But alas, Patrick is not alone.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also said that he is considering entering the primary. Again one has to question, why? And one has to question, why so late? Many of the candidates who are actively running for president entered the race early this year. They have campaign offices and they’ve hired campaign staffs. These are not things that Patrick or other new entrants cannot do, but momentum is towards those who have been in the race longer. Or is it? Could it be the reason Patrick has entered and Bloomberg is considering entering the race is the current field of candidates is dismal? Patrick’s entry and Bloomberg’s question about entering says more about the Democratic Party then it does them. It also shows that the primary next year will be a tough race and the base consolidation that will have to be done after the candidate is decided will be even tougher. The Democratic Party can only hope that with all the candidates that are in the race the party will be able to unify behind the candidate who wins the primary. 

Similar Read: Bloomberg’s Move to Clear the Field

I Read The Mueller Report… Here is My Summary

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

I Read The Mueller Report, and Here is My Summary. 

You can read it too if you have the time:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

These are my summations and conclusions:

VOLUME 1 – Russian Meddling in the U.S. Election and Collusion with the Trump Campaign

p. 9 Mueller gave the report straight to the Attorney-General because he was ordered to do so by the original mandate. Even if, as evidenced in this memo: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/12/20/read-bill-barrs-19-page-memo-ripping-mueller-probe/?slreturn=20190318182817, William Barr is politically compromised in favor of President Trump (a la Roy Cohn), Mueller did his job and followed the letter of the law rather than go rogue and release the unredacted report to Congress or the public. Because of decisions like this, and because Mueller did not make any brash decisions to prosecute Trump even with overwhelming evidence of obstruction (as I will summarize later), Mueller’s credibility is without blemish. This report is to be believed whether you love or hate Trump and his associates.

p. 9 The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump get elected. This is not a conspiracy, this is a fact.

p. 9 The Special Counsel’s appointment was predicated on Intelligence gathered BEFORE the Steele Dossier. So there can no longer be discussion about this investigation being illicit on the grounds of wrongly obtained FISA warrants or anything else related to the Steele Dossier.

p. 9 The Special Counsel found that Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadapoulos had met in May of 2016 with a Russian Government Agent to obtain disparaging information on Hillary Clinton and consequently started its investigation into Russian Involvement in the election in July of 2016.

p. 9 The Russian Government perceived that it could benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome.

p. 10 Collusion is not a crime and the Special Counsel focused on “coordination” or “conspiracy” which would require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. It was established that the Russian Government helped Trump and that Trump enjoyed this help, but no evidence could be found to conclude that this was planned prior to the election.

p. 12 The Russians targeted Clinton, her campaign staff, and all her major supporters spreading false information about them as well as accurate information that was damning. These operations were carried out by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) which was funded by Russian Oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin (who is heavily tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin).

p. 12 The IRA started in 2014 with the goal of simply disrupting the American Electoral process and sow discord amongst the United States (the U.S. being Russia’s greatest obstacle to economic and political power). As Trump became a viable candidate in 2016, the IRA switched its objectives to helping him win after identifying him as incredibly favorable to Russian national interests.

p. 13 There were numerous communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government (which were lied about, consequently resulting in criminal indictments for many in the Trump Campaign), but the Special Counsel could not establish that there was a prior conspiracy to coordinate the many damaging releases of information by Wikileaks (via the IRA) to hurt Clinton and help Trump.

Again, The Russian Government identified Trump as the best candidate for their future success and worked to help him get elected. It could simply not be proven that Trump conspired with them towards their goal.

p. 13 Trump was trying to build Trump Tower Moscow in 2015 and lied about this during the campaign saying, “We have no business with Russia.” The deal would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump.

p. 14 On August 2nd, 2016, Paul Manafort met with a Russian Agent to establish a plan for Russia to control Eastern Ukraine after Trump’s election (while the U.S. would essentially look the other way).

p. 14 Wikileaks (via IRA) released the Podesta emails hours after Trump’s damning “grab ‘em by the pussy” video to help the Trump Campaign change the national discourse from his behavior on that bus to the DNC’s unethical behavior during the primary (which ultimately hurt Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning). This was action taken by a foreign government to interfere in the U.S. election to help Trump win.

p. 15 After Trump was elected, dozens of Russian businessmen started reaching out to the Trump campaign to set up phone calls and meetings.

p. 15 Obama sanctioned Russia for interfering in the U.S. election and Michael Flynn personally requested to his Russian contacts not to escalate the situation because Trump would likely not continue these penalties against Russia.

p. 17 The Special Counsel found a great deal of evidence for contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russia, but not enough evidence to file criminal charges. So, there is evidence of collusion, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 17 Many members of the Trump campaign lied about their Russian contacts and this is why there are so many indictments and Trump campaign members currently serving jail time.

p. 18 The Republican Party changed its stance on Russia (from hostile to friendly) in the summer of 2016, but the Special Counsel could not conclude that this was related to a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

p. 18 MANY INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED PLEADED THE 5th, LIED IN THEIR TESTIMONY, OR WERE FOUND TO HAVE DELETED INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION. In other words, the Special Counsel is making decisions based on evidence it could find, but states in this report that a TON of information has been illegally discarded, including via the methods that many Republicans accuse the Clinton campaign of utilizing (acid washing email servers, destroying computers, etc.).

The Special Counsel therefore states that there could be more evidence that DOES prove conspiracy between Trump and the Russian Government.

p. 19-33 information on how the Special Counsel was formed, its jurisdiction, and information about the Russian hacking agency IRA. Most of this is redacted.

p. 33 The IRA spent $100,000 to purchase over 3,500 advertisements on Facebook that promoted groups supporting Trump and spreading false information about Clinton.

p. 34 IRA fake accounts reached tens of millions of people and attracted hundreds of thousands of followers.

p. 34 Before their deactivation in 2017, fake Russian accounts spreading propaganda in favor of Trump and false information about Hillary Clinton had reached an estimated 126 million people.

p. 35 U.S. Media regularly quoted the false information from these fake accounts as factual news, notably Sean Hannity, Michael McFaul, Roger Stone, and Michale Flynn Jr. who retweeted or cited these fake sources on network Television.

p. 37 The IRA organized hundreds of rallies via Facebook across the U.S. by having a Page administrator host the rally and then claim they could not personally attend, leaving the ground organization to the enthusiastic members of the group. The earliest evidence of this technique was a “confederate rally” in November 2015.

SIDE NOTE: Russia’s goal is to destabilize America (because America’s military presence prevents Russia from controlling major resources, trade routes, and strategic lands like the port of Crimea and Georgia which Russia annexed over the course of the Obama administration). But to accomplish this, Russia has studied the issues that sow the most division in America and have sought to fan the flames which already exist here – like racism, Confederate sympathizers, Nazi Sympathizers, the Ku Klux Klan, gun rights, Police protection vs. minority targeting, the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice battle, anti-Immigrant sentiment, religious division, etc.

Trump’s voting base is almost entirely made up of single “wedge” issue voters who only need to hear one sentence: “I support your position” to gain their votes. This is an obviously successful political strategy that plays perfectly into the goals of the Russian Government: sowing divisiveness. It may be the case that Trump is not a witting agent of Russia (although the Mueller report does not rule that out), but he is at least an unwitting agent of their agenda to get America to fight amongst itself while Russia promotes its interests globally.

p. 39 The IRA recruited individuals it believed could help further its agenda of helping Trump and hurting Clinton. It focused on individuals who could “amplify” its content.

p. 41 The Special Counsel found two definite links between the IRA and the Trump Campaign, but none between IRA and Clinton.

p. 42-65 All the hacking techniques used by IRA including how they got the data and disseminated it via Guccifer 2.0, Wikileaks, and DC Leaks.

Also outlines what actions many Trump campaign officials undertook to defraud the United States and essentially commit treason by assisting Russia/IRA.

MANY REDACTIONS here.

p. 68 Trump Jr. was communicating directly with Wikileaks about damaging information.

p. 69 The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign actually did the hacking or released the damning information, but that they simply welcomed its effect on the election. The famous Don Jr. “I love it,” email when he heard about dirt on Hillary is not evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

p. 70-73 Because Clinton did use a private email server (which was reckless, but not criminal according to the FBI), her communications that she destroyed were vulnerable and in fact had been obtained by many foreign agencies. The Trump campaign was trying to find these emails (to use against her), but this is still part of “politics as usual,” and they did not specifically coordinate with a foreign government in this regard.

p. 74-120 Outlines all the links between Russia and the Trump campaign (there are many).

p. 74 Trump Tower Moscow details (it was a very real project for years).
TRUMP WAS WORKING ON GETTING THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT DONE WELL INTO HIS CAMPAIGN WHEN HE LIED ABOUT “NO BUSINESS WITH RUSSIA.”

Was this because he was conspiring with Russian Oligarchs to win the election and then help Russian National interests? Or just because he knew it would look extremely bad if the President of the United States was doing business with a hostile nation?

Either way, the President lied repeatedly to the American people for reasons that are extremely impeachable (attempting to use the Office of the President for personal enrichment which violates the Emoluments Clause), or treasonous (conspiring with a hostile foreign power to defraud the United States).

p. 118 At the Trump Tower Meeting, Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner met with Russian Agents to discuss “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. later lied about this meeting after Trump instructed him to (this is public knowledge now after Trump’s lawyer released a letter stating that Trump helped to craft the letter pretending that the meeting was to discuss adoption).

p. 131 Russians at the Republican National Convention (notably Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak) got the Republican platformed changed from “lethal assistance to Ukraine in response to Russian aggression” to “appropriate assistance.”

p. 133 A Trump representative stopped the Republican National Convention Committee from drafting a platform amendment that was tougher on Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Support for NATO was also discouraged with Trump’s representative J.D. Gordon stating that “We don’t want to start World War III over that region.”

In other words, Trump’s position on Europe and Russia is to be hands off and let them figure it out. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it goes against the US (and Republican Party) policy since probably World War II.

p. 137-152 Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, his assistant Rick Gates, and their criminal connections to Ukraine and Russia.

p. 153-181 After the election, multiple Russian Oligarchs, Businessmen, and Politicians began reaching out to the Trump Campaign through channels that had been pre-established (including the Russian embassy).

p. 182 The decisions to prosecute (or not prosecute).

p. 183 Trump Campaign did have contact with IRA, but did not do so with criminal intent.

p. 183 Many Russian hackers were charged with Computer-Intrusion Conspiracy.

p. 184-188 Almost all redacted.

p. 188 The Trump Tower meeting was not a conspiracy or a violation of campaign finance law because no evidence of any criminal intent was established. However, this meeting was lied about multiple times and has consequently yielded several obstruction of justice charges already against U.S. citizens.

p. 189 The report defines “conspiracy” (“collusion”) and says that Trump and his associates did many suspicious things, but they could not find evidence of a criminal coordination to defraud the United States. This does not mean there was NO evidence, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 190 Manafort and Gates illegally engaged in acts on behalf of a foreign principal (hence their prosecution and jail time).

p. 191 Michael Flynn also violated the same act. These men were essentially trying to sell out their country in the interest of helping other countries (for lots of money).

p. 192 There was no campaign finance law violations because the Trump Campaign never paid money for the “dirt” on Clinton and thus never unlawfully spent campaign finance money to help win the election.

p. 192-195 Essentially the June 9th 2016 Trump Tower Meeting was incredibly close to violating a Federal Law banning foreign assistance during campaigns, but the Special Counsel could not prosecute on the grounds that “recounting damning information that is historically accurate” does not constitute a “thing of value” (they then go on to define “thing of value” to prove their point).

SIDE NOTE: So there WAS a type of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian Agents, but just not technically according to legal definitions. 

p. 196-199 Redacted (this is suspicious).

p. 199-206 All the indictments because of lying to the FBI

VOLUME 2 – Obstruction of Justice Investigation of the President

p. 213 MUELLER STATES THAT HE CANNOT PROSECUTE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THAT ACTION IS UP TO CONGRESS. So he is only providing evidence here and it clearly points to the fact that Donald Trump obstructed justice.

p.213 MUELLERS STATES THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED (ONLY IMPEACHED), WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. This leaves the door open for prosecution once Trump leaves office.

There is a good reason for this precedent. A President could be implicated in a dozen crimes of which he is innocent and standing trial for those crimes would take all of his or her time away from the all important office and duties he or she is meant to uphold. A President’s crimes must be so egregious and obvious that Impeachment becomes necessary and this requires an enormous majority of Congress to accomplish (which also makes it a Political trial more than an evidence-based trial).

p. 214 IF TRUMP WAS INNOCENT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT WOULD HAVE STATED IT. HE IS NOT.

The report on Obstruction all but states that Trump committed Obstruction on the first page, but leaves the conclusion (and trial) up to the Congress.

p. 215 Mueller outlines the main evidence for Obstruction of Justice in the first chunk of this Volume. Here are the main points:

  1. During the 2016 campaign, Trump lied publicly that he did not believe Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC when privately he was seeking even more information from Wikileaks which he knew was connected to Russia.
  2. Trump also lied about having business connections in Russia during his campaign while he was, in fact, negotiating with Russian Oligarchs to build Trump Tower Moscow.
  3. After being elected, Trump expressed private concerns that the Russia Investigation might delegitimize his Presidency.
  4. On January 27th, 2017, the day after the President was informed that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to dinner at the White House and demanded loyalty.
  5. On February 14th, 2017, the day after the President asked for Flynn’s resignation, the President told an advisor, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The advisor disagreed and said the investigation would continue. Hearing this, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey (to the dismay of all of Trump’s advisors), and asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.
  6. Trump sought to have Deputy National Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak (this is actually more proof of Russian Collusion). McFarland declined because she did not know if that was true and this letter would look like a quid-pro-quo for the ambassadorship she had just been offered.
  7. In February of 2017, Trump told Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself on the Russia Investigation. When Sessions recused himself, Trump expressed outrage and told advisors he should have an Attorney General that would protect him. Trump took Sessions aside that weekend and told him to “un-recuse.”
  8. Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed to Congress that the FBI was investigating “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election,” including any links to the Trump campaign. Trump reached out to DNI and CIA to get them to publicly dispel any suggestion the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also called Comey twice directly, against his own lawyer’s (Don McGahn’s) advice. He wanted Comey to publicly state that Trump was innocent.
  9. May 3rd, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey.
  10. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, falsely state that Comey had informed the President he was not under investigation.
  11. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation, but the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice so this was a lie.
  12. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing.
  13. The next day, the President acknowledged in a TV interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the DOJ’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.
  14. On May 17th, when Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the Russian Election Interference and possible ties to Trump, the President reacted to this news saying: “this is the end of my presidency” and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions resigned, but Trump did not accept it.
  15. The President tried to tell aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and could not continue. His advisors told him those alleged conflicts had no merit and were already considered by the Department of Justice.
  16. On June 14th, 2017, when Trump found out he was certainly under investigation, Trump fired off a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation.
  17. On June 17th, 2017 the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had “conflicts of interest” and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out this decision deciding he would rather resign than carry out what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre (a reference to Watergate).
  18. Two days after directing McGahn to fire Mueller, the President made another attempt to affect the investigation. On June 19th, 2017, the President met one-on-one with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. He told Sessions to say that the investigation was “very unfair” to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let him move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.” Lewandowski never delivered this message, feeling uncomfortable with the request. He asked White House Official Rick Dearborn to do it, but he did not follow through either.
  19. Trump then began blasting Sessions on Twitter mocking him and letting him know his job was in jeopardy (clearly) because he was not fighting Mueller publicly in regards to this investigation.
  20. Trump edited a press statement about the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump tower deleting a sentence that stated the Russians had “information helpful to the campaign” and stating the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. The President’s personal lawyer said the President had no role in drafting this statement, but this was later proven to be a lie. Trump helped to draft this lie to the Public about a very important component of the Russia Investigation (by itself this is obstruction).
  21. In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal.
  22. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to “take a look at investigating Clinton.”
  23. In December of 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty, Trump told Sessions that if he “un-recused himself and took back supervision of the Russia Investigation, he would be a hero.”
  24. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel in 2017 and that McGahn threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. Trump ordered McGahn to refute this claim publicly and make a record that this was never the case. McGahn told Trump officials (who were asking him to do this) that the reports were accurate and he would not lie. Trump later asked McGahn why he had told the truth to Mueller about Trump trying to get McGahn to fire him, and why McGahn took notes during their meetings.
  25. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, Trump’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn’s attorneys reminding them of Trump’s “warm feelings for him” which “still remain” and for a “heads up” if Flynn knew “information that implicates the President.”
  26. When Flynn’s counsel informed Trump that Flynn could no longer share information, the President’s counsel said he would make sure Flynn knew his actions reflected “hostility” towards the President.
  27. The President praised Manafort in public, calling him a “brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” almost ought to be outlawed.
  28. Trump’s conduct towards Michael Cohen changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s involvement in Trump Tower Moscow, to the castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness.
  29. When Cohen started cooperating with Special Counsel, Trump publicly called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.
  30. Trump threatened witnesses in public and dangled pardons and this is still an obstruction of justice even though it was done in plain view.
  31. Trump acted in two phases: prior to being told he was under investigation and afterwards. The second phase also occurred after firing James Comey. His actions, both publicly and privately, after finding out he was being investigated demonstrate a clear motive to obstruct.

p. 220 The President’s counsel tried to stop the investigation into obstruction, but their defenses failed to provide a basis for declining to investigate the facts.

p. 220 The President is not immune from being prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice, but it is the Congress’ job to investigate and prosecute (impeachment).

The next 200 pages substantiate the above conclusions in great details.

In conclusion:

The President of the United States certainly obstructed justice and is also an unwitting (or possibly witting if more evidence presents itself) aid to Russia which is why they helped him win the 2016 election.

A New Hope (in Political Discourse)

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Last week members of Congress on both sides of the aisle tested a new low in political discourse during hearings on financial institutions and climate change.  Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) used his time during a House Oversight Committee meeting on climate change with testimony by former secretary of state, senator and presidential candidate John Kerry to begin his questioning of “pseudoscience” by equating it to Sec. Kerry’s BA from Yale in Political Science as being also a degree in “pseudoscience.”  The entire back and forth where Kerry (for good reason) asked “Is this really happening right now?” was actually more painful to watch than even this sounds, and if you didn’t know already would leave you incredulous that Rep. Massey is also the recipient of a Masters in Electrical Engineering from MIT.

Massie Kerry Exchange

Just down the hallway, while the House Financial Services Committee was hearing testimony from Sec. of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, when he asked to be dismissed at the end of his testimony period to attend a previously disclosed meeting with a foreign dignitary, a standoff ensued where Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), whose committee had fallen behind schedule told Mnuchin that he may leave, but refused to dismiss him. The semantics were not lost on Mnuchin that the Chairwoman intended to later accuse him of abandoning the hearing without being dismissed- something he did not wish to do- eventually after the hearing descended into pettiness and already late for his other scheduled meeting, Mnuchin did leave as he was “free to do” without being formally dismissed.

Waters Mnuchin Exchange

Neither of these hearings was particularly insightful and in neither case was the member of Congress hoping to learn anything useful from the testimony.  The primary objectives were to 1) play to their respective bases by forcing extremely senior members of the current and former cabinet to listen to copious amounts of dressing down that would please their bases in much the same way WWE fans cheer when a wrestler breaks a chair over the head of WWE’s billionaire CEO, Vince McMahon.  And while many of those on the sidelines cheered and jeered one and the other, in both cases, Congress, the Cabinet and all of America got a little dumber.

But I took some hope in something else I saw this week…

A back and forth feud ensued between mayor and presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg and Vice President Mike Pence.  In a similar fashion, they are both on extremely different ends of the political spectrum- although both represent the views of very large blocs of the country and the electorate.  And yet their discourse was so much different.  It was pointed, direct, biting and civil.  People on both ends of the spectrum, in similar fashion, cheered and jeered, and both are men the media on both sides are propping up and tearing down in a personal fashion that doesn’t represent the actual men.. and yet, they remain positive, civil and focused on the issues.

As we head into this election, I’m hopeful that both Buttigieg and Pence will continue to lead us out of this race for the bottom. People on both sides have good reasons to support their candidates and good reasons to have real, honest, heartfelt and passionate fear, excitement and at times anger, but the dumbing down of our leaders has caused us to replace governance with Facebook memes, sound bytes, and personal attacks that distract us from the policies and agendas that underly our elected leaders.  You may hate or love what Pence or Buttigieg represent, but either way, the odds are that you judge them by their policies, their agendas, their beliefs and their objectives.  And if Congress could follow that example, America would be far better off.

Similar Read: The Delicate Art of Compromise

Reframing the Mueller Investigation

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGen ZPolitics

The Mueller report has been finalized, Barr has released a four-page summary to the American people, and now the fight has been moved to Congress to determine what happens from this point on.  Barr’s summary, though it is notably not a substitute for the entire report, states that “no evidence of collusion” was found on the President himself, and the obstruction of justice case produced results that neither “indict nor exonerate” Trump.  For Democrats, perhaps, and especially those that have been counting on Mueller to save them, the outcome, at least so far, was underwhelming. Now, the focus shifts to Congressional Democrats to decide whether they should fight to have the Mueller report released and move forward with a possible impeachment or simply move on.  But it is important to see the end of the Mueller investigation for what it is: not an unsatisfying end but part of the larger process to remove Trump from office. 

Before we go there, though, it is worth looking back at what reasonable observers should have expected at this point. The Mueller investigation took 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 interviewed witnesses, and almost two years.  Over its course, it charged 34 individuals, including nine connected to the Trump campaign, though it did not ultimately bring about criminal charges for Trump.  In a lot of ways, the Mueller investigation turned up way more information than we should have expected: what was once a question about a few Russian internet trolls and Facebook algorithms now sheds so much light on the wrongdoing inside and around the Trump campaign.  As compared to past scandals, spanning from Iran-Contra to Whitewater and beyond, Russiagate was a very successful investigation: many people very close to Trump are likely to receive justice and Mueller also recommended other findings about unrelated crimes to their respective departments.  For those who want to see Trump out of office and unable to act on his regressive agenda, the Mueller investigation was hardly a failure, even if it was overhyped by some.

Still, something about it feels disappointing, which is likely to do with our own naivety than anything else.  In other words, we should have expected this to be the institutional result of all this Russia-talk. In America, it has long been said that we have two justice systems—one for the poor and powerless and one for the rich and powerful—and that alone should explain the non-result which has come of Mueller’s investigation.  Beyond that, the history we like to remember tells us a much different story than the one which is true. In school, we all learn about Nixon’s impeachment, from break-in to coverup to resignation. We learn that a popular president was eventually forced to resign by an exhaustive investigation and about how the wheels of justice turn against all who are guilty.  But just maybe we forget or are unaware of the important context that goes along with it. A lot has been said recently of the allies Nixon courted precisely because of—and not in spite of—the Watergate investigation, of people like M. Stanton Evans who said, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.” Eventually, the public turned against Nixon, despite their unwillingness to do so earlier, and the Republican Party was prompted to abandon him too.  In this way, impeachments are not like trials with Congress members as jurors, but trials in which the American people force their representatives’ hands.

Due to this reality, the lesson that transcends Nixon is that removing Trump from office through electing a Democrat in 2020 and through a successful impeachment are not necessarily two divergent strategies forward.  They are, at best, one strategy, with two divergent ends. In other words, the way to impeach Trump is not to find enough evidence to change the GOP’s view on him to obtain the votes, but to change the people’s minds enough to force the GOP to abandon him to protect themselves.  To do this, the Democrat’s private strategy must be seemingly at odds with their public choices. In effect, the bar for impeachment is much higher than the bar for voting him out in 2020: while no one who supports impeachment supports his eventual re-election, there are many Americans currently who support neither his impeachment nor his re-election.  The path forward, then, is to use the cloud of the Russiagate scandal along with the failings of the Trump presidency to fell the president, killing two birds with one stone towards getting him out of office.

On the former, the Democrats have a lot to work with: the uncertainty of the verdict of the Mueller report, it doesn’t exonerate the president, nor leave him untouched with the indictments of his former staff; its incomplete nature, as the people have not read the report and the investigation did not touch on many of issues raised since by Cohen’s testimony; and the apparent secrecy of the findings, Barr issued a summary letter when an innocence-proving-document would warrant a public release.  All of this makes up the public strategy forward for Democrats, but—though I am rarely one to warn Democrats about going too far—I would say their private agenda should be one of caution. Clearly, the evidence in the case is not overwhelming, or Barr would have had to cede such findings. Therefore, impeaching Trump on the grounds of Mueller’s investigation alone with a Republican majority in the Senate is patently impossible.  With that said, Democrats need to publicly raise the Russia questions while never quite bringing the issue to a breaking point, which would likely go against them. To the plain eye, Trump is a conman, but the burden of proof for people as powerful as he is high, and that must be understood.

The point in all this is that the left would benefit from a reframing of Mueller’s investigation from a verdict of success or failure towards a realization that this is but one step in the ultimate process.  While they should not count on the Russia scandal, the left also must never forget it: when they win, they hold all the cards to enact their agenda and keep their place. It is then up to the opposition—those who support democracy and the rule of law—to take it from them.  While legal justice requires a standard beyond reasonable doubt, electoral justice only requires 270. 

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust?